For the object-based microteaching exercise I planned to spend 5 minutes establishing access to Padlet (fig. 1), the aims of the session (fig. 2), a succinct theoretical framework (fig. 3) and practical instructions (fig. 4). The latter included participants choosing an accessible object. Participant analysis of objects was then structured around three phases of five minutes each for description, deduction and speculation. Slides explained each phase, including by way of academic quotation (e.g. description, fig. 5). This made phases distinct, while linking theory to practice. Participants were encouraged to post notes onto Padlet, where an exemplar had been uploaded in advance (figs. 6, 7 and 8). Feedback flagged this as useful (figs. 9), prompting me to continue the strategy.
I aimed to combine my experience of object-based archival pedagogy with that of online activities in which students select objects from their homes. While objects can be used to prompt wider discussion (Willocks and Mahon, 2023), I wanted to focus on analysing objects themselves using Jules Prown’s (1982) method, which is useful for both academic and creative practices. My aim was for participants to gain knowledge of the analytical process, reflect on what material culture is and how it gains meaning, while understanding their analyses as situated within the field of material cultures studies (Miller, 1998).
I hadn’t accounted for difficulty in switching between slides and the Padlet. As I began, I realised I could not see both at the same time, which was disorientating. I verbalised this to participants. I had to present from slides without being able to see and comment on Padlet posts or see a clock. Consequently, time ran out, leaving stages of the process and discussion incomplete.
I managed the difficulties well, which was reflected in feedback that I seemed unphased (fig. 10). In later tutorial, we discussed whether it was necessary to verbalise technical hitches. I will keep this in mind, acknowledging that student and my own experience are not equivalents. Such collective reflection helps me challenge my ‘narrative account’ of the session and ‘to excavate the underlying qualities that made it significant’ (Amulya, 2004, p. 3). I am reminded to foreground the student experience, which was largely positive.
Verbal feedback noted text-heavy slides, while typed comments highlighted that they were clear, not overwhelming, insightful and a useful reference resource (figs. 11 and 12). I interpret this slight contradiction in relation to comments about dividing attention between slides/tutor and the activity (figs. 9 and 12). This induces me to work on sequencing and paring back material to maintain student focus and to practice delivery within timeframes.
Feedback referenced my ‘reassuring and welcoming’ manner, highlighting the choice offered to students (fig. 13). This makes me conscious of positive intuitive behaviours, which I will actively foster. Participating in other sessions gave me a student’s perspective. From this, I draw the positive impact of verbal discussion, physical activities and actively using online resources. I am also prompted to consider how text can be summarised, illustrated and verbalised.
Bibliography
Amulya, J. (2004) What is reflective practice? Center for Reflective Community Practice Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed 24thFebruary 2025 at <https://www.careinnovations.org/wp-content/uploads/what-is-reflective-practice65.pdf >
Miller, D. (ed.) (1998) Material cultures: why some things matter. London:
University College London Press.
Prown, J. D. (1982) ‘Mind in matter: an introduction to material culture theory and method’, Winterthur Portfolio, Spring Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Willcocks, J. and Mahon, K. (2023) ‘The potential of online object-based learning activities to support the teaching of intersectional environmentalism in art and design higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 187-207.
